Raj Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43841 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2024 Thana- KHAJAULI District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

Raj Kumar Yadav S/o Budhan Ram Yadav @ Budha Ram Yadav Resident of village-Marukiya, P.S-Khajauli District-Madhubani 2.

Pradeep Yadav @ Pradeep Kumar Yadav S/o Kameshwar Yadav @ Rameshwar Nandi Yadav @ Rameshwar Yadav @ Kameshwar Yadav Resident of village-Marukiya, P.S-Khajauli District-Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Subhash Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 16-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with Khajauli P.S. Case No. 86 of 2024 lodged on 09.05.2024, for the offence punishable under Sections 429, 436 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of First Class Magistrate, Madhubani.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against five named accused persons including the present petitioners. It has been alleged in the FIR that the accused persons set fire to the cattle shed of the informant, and in the process of extinguish said fire, some people were burnt. Due to said fire, some animals were also severely burnt, one bull died, and 20 quintals

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43841 of 2025(2) dt.16-07-2025 2/2 of wheat were also destroyed. This incident caused a loss to the informant amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. Counsel submits that there is no eye-witness of the said occurrence. Counsel submits that in village area, it is common that people used to burn fire to save the cattle from cold and from other germs. Counsel further submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that due to the said occurrence, one bull died and some animals were severely burnt. Counsel submits that the alleged occurrence took place in the month of May.

6. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners are hereby rejected. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U T